Hot Topics:

Boulder Planning Board again hears Hogan-Pancost, and neighbors still don't like it

By Alex Burness

Staff Writer

Posted:
04/28/2016 10:34:57 PM MDT

Updated:
05/04/2017 06:37:40 PM MDT

Hogan-Pancost, a 22-acre site between East Boulder Community Park and the Keewaydin Meadows neighborhood, is the subject of one of the city's longest-standing development debates. (Paul Aiken / Staff Photographer)

Carrying on a tradition that dates back three decades, neighbors of the hotly contested Hogan-Pancost property turned out in force to again implore the Boulder Planning Board to reject a proposed housing development there.

The 22-acre Hogan-Pancost parcel — in Boulder County east of Foothills Parkway and just southwest of the East Boulder Community Center — has been the subject of one of the most controversial development debates in the city's history.

The Planning Board was meeting Thursday night to consider an annexation of the property into the city and an associated rezoning to allow for the development at Hogan-Pancost of about 120 units on what is now undeveloped field space.

At 10:50 p.m., the public comment segment of the hearing had just wrapped, and the board decided to pause the conversation until the evening May 23, rather than deliberate until the wee hours of Friday.

At least half of the units would be required to be permanently affordable by deed restriction, and about 65 percent of the housing stock would have to be attached duplexes, four-plexes and townhomes. None of the units would exceed 2,500 square feet.

Almost three years ago to the day, this same board — with some of the same members who serve on it today — met for 14 hours over two separate days to consider a similar proposal, though that one included much more housing pitched as market-rate and much less as affordable.

Advertisement

The board ultimately voted unanimously to deny a potential annexation agreement, following fierce pushback from neighbors.

On Thursday night, the Planning Board was reminded why proposals on the site continue to be so difficult to pass. A two-hour earful from 30 of the more than 100 people who turned out for the hearing featured a slew of critiques, which generally centered on a common theme: It wasn't a good idea to develop the land 30 years ago, and it still isn't a good idea.

"I've lived in Boulder since 1973," said Deborah Grojean. "I publicly voiced objection to this project for the first time when I was 41 years old. I am now 67."

"Why are we even discussing this issue again?" asked Barbara Huff. "Nothing has changed in the last 30 years to suddenly make this a good idea. I Implore you to do the right thing, the safe thing, and to again deny the annexation."

Every five years since 2000 — including last year — the city has looked into changing the land's planning designation to make annexation easier. Concept plans for the site came up in 2003, 2007 and 2012. Multiple environmental analyses in the last nine years have determined the site is suitable for development.

The complaints voiced by the neighbors who offered public comment, PowerPoints and even a home video to defend their point frequently included the opinion that the community benefits of the project do not outweigh potential environmental impacts.

Chief among those concerning potential impacts, neighbors said, is that the developers of the project have not performed adequate groundwater analysis to suggest that placing 120 housing units on the land won't present a flooding risk.

Groundwater, which is the water held underground in soil and rock pores, has not been studied thoroughly enough, some neighbors said. But the city has not in the past and does not intend to get involved in questions regarding groundwater impacts of the site. Having no regulatory mechanism for this issue, Boulder doesn't manage groundwater or have any active ongoing investigation of groundwater sources at Hogan-Pancost.

This is of deep concern to many who testified Thursday to their experiences in the 2013 flood, and to their lack of faith that the developers' plans to avoid groundwater issues by putting 3 feet of fill on the development would do any good.

Adrian Sopher, architect for the project, said that "a tremendous amount" of data has been collected over the years at Hogan-Pancost in relation to water issues.

"The 2013 flood did not majorly impact the site," he said, and many in the gallery flashed thumbs-down hand signals and murmured boos.

Some who spoke noted that the development group withdrew a Hogan-Pancost proposal in 2013 after the flood, and that this should be evidence to the fact that the disaster proved housing can't work in the area.

Sopher debunked the rumor.

"Quite simply, this annexation was in process in 2013. When the floods hit, it was clearly a disaster of orders no one's ever seen before," he said. "As a matter of courtesy, the applicant decided to withdraw the application ... out of respect for the disaster."

Engineers from the development side said that the 500-year floodplain affects less than half of the property. Onsite water depths from flooding of any level average less than 1 foot, and high hazard conditions exist only within the banks of an irrigation ditch on the site, they maintain.

Neighbor Gene Treppeda bit back two hours later in public comment, saying of flood potential near the site: "It's possible. It happened. It will happen again. This is wrong, and I beg you to do the right thing."

The developers have not submitted a site plan for the project, which is not in violation of any city protocol, but sparked additional suspicion among neighbors.

Others spoke of traffic impacts, specifically to nearby Kewanee Drive and on Manhattan Drive. Two people spoke in defense of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse and the northern spotted leopard frog, which they claimed would be endangered by development at Hogan-Pancost.

Just as it could have three years ago, the City Council will still have the authority to call up the project for its own review - even if the Planning Board again votes it down.

The Boulder alt-country band gives its EPs names such as Death and Resurrection, and its songs bear the mark of hard truths and sin. But the punk energy behind the playing, and the sense that it's all in good fun, make it OK to dance to a song like "Death." Full Story